Post on 16-Aug-2020
Fostering media literacy and creativity
by making videos: a literature review in
recent PBL programs implementing
student digital video production as a
collaborative learning strategy
by Alejandra Cerrillo de la Rosa
Master’s Degree in Educational Psychology
Academic year 2016-17
Final Master’s Degree Assignment (TFM)
Tutor: Manoli Pifarré Turmo
Facultat de Educació, Psicologia i Treball Social
Universitat de Lleida
12/ sep / 2017
2
Index
INDEX ........................................................................................................................................ 2
SPECIAL THANKS ....................................................................................................................... 4
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. 5
RESUMEN ................................................................................................................................. 5
1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 6
2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................. 8
2.1 Why media literacy? Facing the communicative challenges of a society 2.0 ..................... 8
2.2 Why digital video sharing? The shift of cinematographic language into a two-way medium. ...................................................................................................................................................... 10
2.3 Why creativity? From constructivism to creative pedagogy. ............................................. 12
3 LITERATURE REVIEW QUESTIONS AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................ 16
3.1 Questions ......................................................................................................................... 16
3.2 Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 17
4 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 17
4.1 Web search and keywords ............................................................................................... 17
4.2 Articles’ selection criteria .................................................................................................. 18
4.3 List of articles from internationally ranked journals ........................................................... 20
4.4 List of articles from not ranked journals ............................................................................ 21
5 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................ 23
5.1 Analysis of articles’ keywords frequency .......................................................................... 23
3
5.2 Analysis of articles’ geographical origin ............................................................................ 25
5.3 Analysis of publication year and journal ranking .............................................................. 26
5.4 Research features summary ............................................................................................ 28 5.4.1 Ranked articles’ approaches, instruments, data types and their analysis ................. 34 5.4.2 Not ranked articles’ research features compared ..................................................... 34 5.4.3 Displayed focus of study ........................................................................................... 36 5.4.4 Common findings ...................................................................................................... 36
5.5 Pedagogical features summary ........................................................................................ 38 5.5.1 Study fields and school level ..................................................................................... 40 5.5.2 Pedagogy of video-making learning experiences ..................................................... 41
6 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 48
6.1 Future research towards media-education ....................................................................... 50
7 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................... 51
4
Special thanks
I sincerely want to thank all of the people who trusted, encouraged, and helped me to
finally accomplish my Master’s degree and carry through this final assignment. It is
evident that I owe great appreciation to my tutor, both for this paper and my practicum,
Manoli Pifarré, who in brilliant inductive manner has initiated me in the science of
dialogical pedagogy and creativity research, and who has kindly trusted me, giving me a
one-in-a-million opportunity to which I hope to match up. Nevertheless, I am really
grateful to the Master’s coordinator, Sofía Isus, who with warm support and guidance
helped me to overcome the hardest moments of this quest. I also want to thank the
COnTIC research group, and specially Laura Martí and José Ferreira, whom I have had
the greatest interthinking sessions with. Lastly, I want to express my love to my family, at
both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, whose unconditional support and loving care has
always kept me going on.
5
Abstract
The digital turn of society has boosted digital video sharing (DVS) as a daily basis
communicative action, turning cinematographic language into a two-way medium, so our
culture is shifting into a more participatory and audiovisual one. Thus, media literacy has
become crucial to fully experience it, and the learning scenarios implied by the current
Web 2.0 culture need to take in stride the educational use of video-making and DVS.
Educational research and pedagogical innovation seem to have recently adopted those
attributes as telecommunications mobility and connectivity soar up; yet, new media
programs are not common, nor a well-standardized practice. To check on that, the
present text comprehends a literary review of a selection of recently published articles
treating case studies of PBL programs implementing digital video production and DVS
as a collaborative learning strategy to provide a state-of-the-art perspective of this type
of pedagogical ICT innovation.
Resumen
El giro digital de la sociedad ha impulsado el uso compartido del video digital
(DVS) como una acción comunicativa cotidiana, convirtiendo el lenguaje
cinematográfico en un medio bidireccional, por lo que nuestra cultura se está volviendo
más participativa y audiovisual. Así, la alfabetización mediática se ha vuelto crucial para
experimentarla plenamente y los escenarios de aprendizaje implicados por la actual
cultura de la Web 2.0 necesitan incorporar el uso educativo de la producción de video y
el DVS. La investigación educativa y la innovación pedagógica parecen haber adoptado
recientemente esos atributos a medida que aumentan la movilidad y la conectividad de
las telecomunicaciones; sin embargo, los programas de nuevos medios no son
comunes, ni tampoco una práctica bien estandarizada. Para comprobarlo, el presente
texto comprende una revisión literaria de una selección de artículos publicados
recientemente que tratan sobre estudios de caso de programas de PBL que
implementan la producción de video digital y el DVS como una estrategia de aprendizaje
colaborativo para proporcionar una perspectiva actualizada del estado en que se
encuentra este tipo de innovación pedagógica TIC.
6
1 Introduction
The Web 2.0 is not only transforming the media landscape, but it is also shaping the
way people communicate with each other and create new and meaningful social content.
Digital video sharing (DVS) is one of the new media’s features shifting our cultural model
into a more participatory, creative, and audiovisual one (Jenkins, Ford, & Green, 2013),
and ultimately, such turn is transforming teaching and learning processes. Project and
student-centered curricula have proved to be highly effective to foster media literacy
amongst young learners; yet, even if digital video production and new media have
already been incorporated into many classrooms and school subjects, this is neither a
common nor a well-standardized pedagogic practice yet. Apparently, many teachers still
avoid this type of project, as it demands some challenging video-making technical
requirements, as well as strategic vision to orchestrate the collective creative process for
their students (Cayari, 2015; Palmgren-Neuvonen & Korkeamäki, 2015). Therefore,
current educational practices should be reviewed in order to equip teachers with the
appropriate tools and media literacy, so that they would be able to cultivate in their
students state-of-the-art creative and communicative skills. To a longer extent, media-
education should enable citizens to actively participate, with self-determined and literate
attitude, in the democratic digital construction of society and culture (Wilson, Grizzle,
Tuazon, Akyempong, & Cheung, 2011).
Although technology has played a key role in the proliferation of means by which
people can produce and spread audiovisual contents, we cannot solely attribute to that
people’s natural impulse to interact with each other by sharing audiovisual messages.
“Perhaps nothing is more human than sharing stories, whether by fire or by ‘cloud’ (so to
speak)” (Jenkins et al., 2013, p.2). The rise of online communication tools that facilitate
informal and instantaneous DVS has been long preceded by two factors: first, the
symbolic nature of mankind; second and based upon the first one, the communicative
strength of cinematographic language. Such dichotomy conveys human epistemic thrive
by means of symbolic languages and storytelling.
To start understanding this, let us retake Sartori’s Homo videns (Sartori, 1998).
7
According to his proposal, human languages have a symbolic nature, and being so, at
least at first instance, we tend to communicate rather visually –and by using the plural
form languages we can include not only words or spoken languages, but also symbolic
languages such as cinematography or any figurative art. Humans, differently from other
animals, use a system of signifying signs not only to communicate with each other (outer
speech), but we use language to talk and reflect about ourselves and understand our
world (inner speech). Sartori (1998) defines humans as self-loquacious animals, since
we are beings that constantly talk to ourselves in order to comprehend abstract thought
and sentiments. Subsequently, that inner speech is better uttered through complex
symbols, images, which signify a whole semantic meaning. For words, conveying such
meaning take long compositions, whereas for images it takes only one strike. The
rhythm within the lines in one single frame, just light contrast, it already signifies a whole
story. This is why human communication has a pictorial origin, and thus,
cinematographic language is so appealing to us.
In this context, the key-shifting element is that new media are finally giving
audiovisual voice to their users, meaning that mass communication can now actually be
interactive by means of digital technology. Being so, the one-way audiovisual symbolic
system that cinema once gave birth to has now evolved into a two-way interactive
medium, which adds up further expressive forms that require higher cognitive skills
involving creativity all along the communicative cycle. The audience is not exclusively
receiving and processing information anymore, but it is actively participating in its
production, transformation, and spreading (Jenkins et al., 2013).
In the same line, within computer-based learning and e-learning settings, Personal
Learning Environments (PLEs) (Atwell, 2007) are changing the fixed roles of teachers as
“knowledge transmitters” and students as “knowledge receivers”. If the Web 2.0 has
revolutionized the way we communicate it certainly has affected the way we learn
collectively, and then, it must have had an effect on dialogical skills such as the learn to
learn together (L2L2) skill (Pifarré, Wegerif, Guiral, & Barrio, 2012), which requires a
certain degree of media literacy and social/communicative skills to be able to undertake
such type of collaborative learning experiences. Therefore, developing creativity and
media literacy, specifically regarding audiovisual education, has stepped into the
spotlight when teaching information and communication skills.
8
To sum up, in light of such digital turn of society, the new media are actually re-
shaping the forms and contents of social interaction and are requiring an urgent revision
of the pedagogical approaches to media literacy, going from video-education to media-
education (Mele & Ceretti, 2016). Therefore, it is of utmost importance that media
literacy skills be included in formal education curricula and that new media ICT mediated
learning scenarios be adopted in regular classrooms to enable students to become
fluent in communicating and learning audiovisually, both via DV production and sharing.
In contribution with that end, in this Master’s degree final assignment (TFM, for its
initials in Catalan), I review some publications available on the Internet, treating project-
based learning programs that have implemented a student DV production as a capstone
assignment in collaborative learning scenarios to get an overview of the current state
and spreading of such programs and the research about them.
2 Theoretical Framework
2.1 Why media literacy? Facing the communicative
challenges of a society 2.0
Fostered by the constant improvement of telecommunications, with devices
increasingly more accessible, portable, and ubiquitously interconnected, digital video
(DV) has become an everyday expressive element that comprises great deal of the
interactions on the new media landscape (Ceretti, 2015). From this view, DV is being
used in two ways: first, as a meaningful textual object (form-content), and second, as
pragmatic element of the participatory culture (form-content+sharing), which embeds the
underlying meaning of social interaction (Mele & Ceretti, 2016). Thereby, DVS is one of
the specific characteristics of the Web 2.0 – intended as a communicative space formed
not only by mainstream media production that is available to be spread and re-
9
interpreted by the public, but also and most importantly, it consists of user generated
content involving a constellation of cognitive actions that individuals project on such
networked media when interacting with each other (Ceretti, 2015). In this way, the Web
2.0 has become the medium where we can collectively construct our own identity and
experience culture, particularly consisting of our own audiovisual presence and practice;
giving way to “a more participatory model of culture, one which sees the public not as
simply consumers of preconstructed messages but as people who are shaping, sharing,
reframing, and remixing media content in ways which might not have been previously
imagined” (Jenkins, Ford, & Green, 2013, p. 2).
Immersed into the vast amount of information within the Web 2.0, there seems to be
consensus about the imperative need to care and educate towards a critical approach to
information, pondering relevance, quality, and reliability of the contents that we share
(Cayari, 2015; Ceretti, 2015; Jenkins, Ito, & Boyd, 2016; Martín & Hernández, 2014;
Mele & Ceretti, 2016; Sawyer, 2004; Wilson et al., 2011; Yang, 2013). DVS involves a
series of socially embedded decisions (Jenkins et al., 2013), which are largely
determined by the quality of the information we receive (Wilson et al., 2011). The
influence of information upon our social attitude while interacting through new media
even alters our capacity to enjoy fundamental freedoms, such as the right to freedom of
expression and the right to information access, defining our ability for self-determination
and development (Wilson et al., 2011). Thus, it is crucial that civic education includes
media and information literacy as one of the main skills in regard to democratic
participation of society.
For instance, the Alexandria Proclamation of 2005, states that media and information
literacy “empowers people in all walks of life to seek, evaluate, use and create
information effectively to achieve their personal, social, occupational and educational
goals. It is a basic human right in a digital world and promotes social inclusion of all
nations” (UNESCO, 2005). In the same direction, the UNESCO Media and Information
Literacy Curriculum for Teachers adds that such literacy is knowledge that should enable
“users to engage with media and information channels in a meaningful manner” (Wilson
et al., 2011, p.16). This curricular proposal places teachers as the main agents in the
shift to a society 2.0 – or media humanity, as Ceretti (2015) names it. Consequently,
pedagogical research should enrich such practice with the best possible theoretical
10
framing and practical resources, both for teachers and students.
In brief, the contemporary digital media landscape, supported by the Web 2.0, offers
the opportunity for people to participate in shaping their cultures using digital video as a
main textual element, and digital video sharing as a common communicative practice. In
doing so, the new media may have a strong potential for supporting democracy (Yang,
2013); yet, comprisal of media literacy in formal education is pivotal for actually enabling
people to capitalize what new media can offer them in terms of self-empowerment and
social readiness for collaborative and democratic processes.
2.2 Why digital video sharing? The shift of
cinematographic language into a two-way medium.
The famous Russian film director Tarkovsky (1987), went further from the classical
conception of cinema as a language – the one that implies that cinema could be
simplified to a system of signs and norms, just like any other language-. He argued that
cinema, like music, are immediate arts, as they use materials directly from nature itself,
and so, contrastingly with literature, these arts do not need the mediation of words.
“Some image of the world arises in the writer's consciousness, which
he then, by means of words, writes down on paper. But the roll of film
imprints mechanically the features of the unconditional world, which
came into the camera's field of vision, and from these an image of the
whole is subsequently constructed.” (Tarkovsky, 1987, p. 177)
That being said, we can now understand the natural growth of audiovisual scope in
new media, provided digital technology allowed it. Cinematographic images are one the
most effective ways to utter our inner speech. Even though, Tarkovsky’s point of view
about the relationship between the artist and audience is rather individualistic- “Art is by
nature aristocratic, and naturally selective in its effect on the audience” (Tarkovsky,
1987, p. 164). In such way, it is only one single point of view that an artistic artifact, like
cinema, can depict. Nevertheless, he proposed that the artist would then have a duty
11
with society, being the one who speaks for those who are not in condition to express
their own relationship with reality (Tarkovsky, 1987). However, in this sense, the so-
called dialogue between author and audience is not so, since the audience has some
sort of passive role in all this. Whatever understanding the public may have about a
cinematographic piece remains only within each person’s head, but there is not actual
interaction for this relationship to be called dialogue. Without interaction, without actual
dialogue about it, the author’s message is likely to be consigned to oblivion. Perhaps
mediation of words, or other interactive medium, is required after all.
In a less rhetorical tone, yet still on the same direction, Vygotsky (1978), while
tracking down the role of language in human development and learning, ascertained that
inner speech is thinking in pure meanings (Vygotsky, 1978). It is the condensation of
meaning derived from social interaction, a form of understanding more intricately
interconnected to oneself and one’s world: “inner speech assists the person in creating
new meanings” (Sawyer et al., 2003, p. 75). It is only when we re-interpret information,
when we re-encode it in order to enunciate it, only then, when we actually acquire that
information as knowledge and become able to use it in further creative tasks.
This is the reason why social interaction, by means of constructive dialogue, has
been pointed out by dialogical pedagogues, from Freire, (1969) to Wegerif (2001),
whose methods stemmed from the Vygotskian framework, as the key learning strategy
to transit from one edge of the zone of proximal development (ZDP) to the other. This is
how the Web 2.0 and DVS mediation to cinema revolutionized its communication
dynamics and turned it into an actual dialogic medium; for there are much more tools
currently available that enable audiences, even regular public of mainstream block
busters, to re-interpret audiovisual content in highly accessible and immediate ways.
Audiences might not be interacting in direct dialogue with the cinematographic author, as
Tarkovsky might have suggested, but they are having peer interaction; yet, still they are
acquiring whatever knowledge audiovisual content may have delivered to them.
Thus, even by commenting and sharing clips of a film, audiences are participating in
the construction of some collective knowledge that, most assuredly, needs to be guided
and instructed so as to make it actually meaningful, and not only cumulative or
disputational talk (Wegerif, Mercer, & Dawes, 1999). Ceretti (2015) coincides with this
12
view and states that media education has already demonstrated that media competency
is not a natural quality own by every media user; and so, it is an educational goal that
should be achieved by means of structured pedagogical methods. He named such type
of pedagogy media-education. To that end, media-education should enable people to
digitally communicate in a correct and effective way their own relationship to reality; in
other words, students of the digital era should be equipped to collaborate with peers via
new media in the construction of participatory cultures.
2.3 Why creativity? From constructivism to creative
pedagogy.
In light of the transformation of cinematographic language into an interactive
medium, we could then compare the artist’s role – that of being the communicatively
qualified one who speaks for the unqualified rest of the people – with a teacher’s role, or
with the duty of a media literate person that instructs others in the new media and
participatory cultures. Within the Vygotskian framework, we would be talking of the more
capable person that assists the learner to walk along the ZPD. Thereby, a media literate
teacher should be then a facilitator who enables students to participate in and interact
through the new media in a meaningful and autonomous manner, so that, in the end,
every learner is enabled as an active and constructive media user.
However, in the media-education, a teacher’s role is not hierarchically discursive
anymore like in conventional teaching: “Scripted instruction is opposed to constructivist,
inquiry-based, and dialogic teaching methods that emphasize classroom collaboration”
(Sawyer, 2004, p. 12). In incorporating dialogical methods, with which distributed
cognition happens, teachers still keeps some authoring extends, even in dynamic
orchestration – the emergent classroom management of class talk and flow of activities
(Sharples & Anastopoulou, 2012). Nevertheless, beyond the planning of sophisticated
hands-on activities, it is the teacher's and students' talk around the activities what
matters to guide the development of learners' understanding (Mercer & Howe, 2012).
Still, learner’s autonomous learning by doing (questioning, inquiring, searching,
manipulating, experimenting, designing, creating, and even playing, which all require an
13
active role of the learners) will eventually come in place.
The core idea of constructivism – which, ultimately, implies a processual and
developmental understanding of creativity – is that children participate in the creation of
their own knowledge (Sawyer et al., 2003). Although, student’s creative agency of their
own learning is not realized individually and spontaneously just a result of maturation. To
the contrary, “the developmental process lags behind the learning process” (Vygotsky,
1978, p. 90), and so, cognitive development is the intramental outcome of intermental
activity, and here is where the teachers and peers are decisive to promote an
individual’s development. According to Mercer (2000), an updated notion of the
intermental activity, derived from teacher’s scaffolding, occurs as a teaching-and-
learning interthinking process. Thus, if cognitive development is to be understood as
acquisition of a new mindset resulted from social interaction, we could then establish that
learning in constructivist scenarios would be analogous to collective creative processes.
Then, we can understand why creativity theorists, such as Sawyer (1999), conceive
creativity as an emergent process that involves a group of individuals engaged in
complex and unpredictable interactions, and propose creative teaching as an
improvisational performance guiding a collective creative process (Sawyer, 2004). In this
way, “by moving from explicit content-related guidance (enhancing students' knowledge)
to more implicit process-related support that promotes learners' active roles, the teacher
leads novices to gradually take more responsibility for their learning” (Palmgren-
Neuvonen & Korkeamäki, 2015).
Such teaching-and-learning process could be equivalent to the creative pedagogy
described by Lin (2011). In creative pedagogy, which has drawn attention since the mid
twentieth century when researchers started exploring innovative classroom practices to
expand higher-level thinking and develop problem solving skills by building up students’
motivation and creative behavior (Lin, 2011), the teacher stills plays a role in terms of
ethos (knowledgeable expertise), but does not deliver knowledge in the traditional
discursive way where teaching and learning were two separate processes that rarely met
each other (see Figure 1). Contrastingly, as Lin (2011) brilliantly points out, creative
pedagogy has three interconnected elements that complement and result in each other,
rendering it a resonant process (see Figure 2).
14
According to this author, there
is a difference between teaching
creatively and teaching for
creativity as the first one is more
centered in teachers’ performance
and their approach to teaching
methodology, whereas the second
one includes the learners’ active
role as well, and so, its focus is
more on designing curricula and
even planning classroom
dynamics. In this way, combining
these three elements, in creative
pedagogy “a supportive climate for
developing creative abilities and qualities is created through the interaction between
inventive and effective teaching (by the creative facilitator), and creative learning (by the
active learner)” (Lin, 2011, p. 152).
Under such intent, we could then say that those three interlaced elements of creative
pedagogy are as well at the very origin of project-based learning (PBL) or any other
methodology centered on students' agentic role. In this type of learning scenarios,
students select, plan, investigate and produce a product, presentation or performance
that answers a real world question or responds to an authentic challenge; following
Holm's definition of PBL (2011). As it is evident, in all of these student-centered
The
learner
The
teacher
Teaching: Delivering knowledge
Learning: listen and accept what is taught.
Figure 1, Conventional teaching and learning process (Lin, 2009).
Creative Pedagogy
Teaching
for
creativity
Creative
Learning
Figure 2 The three elements of creative pedagogy. (Own elaboration, adapted from Lin, 2009).
Creative
Teaching
15
methodologies the creative process is the driving motor to accomplish a purposeful
pursuit for students, and thus, the teaching should be centered on scaffolding such
process so that it is feasible and actually meaningful or instructive for them.
Subsequently, it becomes obvious why plenty of authors support the idea that PBL is the
best pedagogical methodology to promote media literacy in a creative environment
(Holm, 2011; Lin, 2011; Sawyer & DeZutter, 2009; Wilson et al., 2011).
Moreover, if we take the same structure of Lin's (2011) creative pedagogy, and we
apply it to the specific example of a PBL classroom meant to promote media literacy,
teacher’s orchestration to engage with the audiovisual participatory culture in a
meaningful way could become the creative teaching, the dialogic interaction through
Web 2.0 platforms could be equivalent to the creative learning, and a new media PBL
program including a student DV production and DVS could then be a ideal teaching-for-
creativity scenario (see Figure 3).
Anyway, a hands-on program in student-generated DV production implies numerous
unpredictable events and factors in terms of interrelational dynamics, intellectual ability,
and technical challenges, and even experienced in DV projects, the teachers might not
Media-education
Teacher’s
orchestration of
video-making and
after-visioning
activities
New media
PBL program
Student
dialogic
interaction
via Web 2.0
Figure 3 Creative pedagogy applied to media-education (Own elaboration, adapted from Lin, 2009).
16
completely control such challenges (Sawyer, 2004). Thus, a balance between
improvisation and design must be found to make the best of such open-ended tasks.
This is just the kind of challenge that I, as an educational psychologist, intend to tackle,
first, by reviewing some case studies of programs somewhat similar to the figure above.
3 Literature review questions and objectives
The general aim of this paper is to provide an updated overview of the empirical
research being performed in nowadays classrooms regarding in-class digital video
production to foster media literacy skills and creative thinking so as to identify the
common features of such programs and their reported outcomes.
3.1 Questions
• Are pedagogical researchers studying and innovating in toolkits and
resources for teachers to implement student-produced digital video
assignments as a collective learning strategy?
• Are such papers published in internationally ranked journals?
• How varied are the school subjects and the educational levels these
programs are addressed to?
• Which research methodologies are they using?
• What pedagogical approach was used to implement such programs?
• What sort of video projects are they carrying on and what is their reported
impact on students’ creative thinking and media literacy skills?
• Was the creative process somehow scaffolded as the video-making process
went on?
• Which findings coincide and which ones differ?
17
3.2 Objectives
• Evaluate how well spread and deepen is this type of empirical educational
research.
• Point out which are the common elements enabling and motivating teachers and
researchers to undertake this pedagogical use of video-making.
• Observe coincidences and differences amidst research methodologies,
pedagogical approaches and their position towards creativity and media literacy.
• Identify a research line that might lead to further pedagogical innovation to create
toolkits and resources that foster media literacy and creative skills in high school
classrooms.
4 Methodology
In this section I describe the steps followed to search and select the articles to be
reviewed. It is necessary to mention that the articles search started in June, 2017, and
was finished by mid August, same year, as I started looking for articles intuitively to get
myself situated in this topic, and then, so as to obtain an attainable quantity of papers for
the purposes of this review, I repeated the web query until I have got an refined selection
of articles.
4.1 Web search and keywords
Firstly, let us step back and take a look to the whole picture of how the articles were
chosen and which are their general characteristics. The web search for the selected
literature was done through ScienceDirect (Scopus’ database searcher), and ERIC (a
database dedicated to educational research exclusively). At first, I began using the
words “video”, “education”, “collaborative”, and “video production”, whose results were
daunting numerous. Moreover, some of the first results from that query seemed to be off
topic, and just few of them were articles about empirical research in educational
18
programs using video-making as a hands-on learning strategy.
Then, I tried a combination of words adding “creativity”, or “creative”, and “student-
produced video”. However, the variation of topics from one query to another evidenced
that these words were not accurate enough to locate empirical research about the
educational use of video-making within creative pedagogy. Thus, I changed the word
“collaborative” for “project-based learning”, in attempt to target the pedagogical approach
I was looking for, and added “media literacy” to close up the search towards the skills
that new media involve. Using the following keywords (see Figure 4) the results
appeared in more manageable number and were more accurate. - in ScienceDirect, 90
results from 2016 and 103 from 2017; whereas in ERIC, 46 in 2016 and 8 in 2017, by
20/Aug/17.
It is worth to be mentioned the fact that some of the first results that seemed
adequate led me to find other articles alike, as I used the tool “recommended articles”
from ScienceDirect, and sometimes, I also typed in Google Scholar the title of an article
or an author’s name that seemed interesting looking for open access PDF versions not
available neither in ScienceDirect or ERIC. In turn, those searches displayed further
results that I also considered in this review and did not appeared as a direct result from
the keyword query.
4.2 Articles’ selection criteria
All in all, under the aforementioned keywords, I have got a considerable number of
results from very recent publication years, so I still had to filter the results in order to
select just a representative sample of papers. As for the papers addressing the targeted
video, education, project-based+learning, video+production, media+literacy
Figure 4 Web query keywords (Own elaboration)
19
type of research, many of them depicted a program that had been implemented in STEM
university courses, so I followed a criteria that would make me come up with a selection
comprising a wider variety of fields of study, but targeting only formal education settings,
mostly at high school level, which is the educational level I intend to come into later on.
Finally, I selected 16 case studies from 15 different publications, as one is a book
that comprises many cases from where I picked the two that seemed more
representative, yet different from the rest. I also picked a wide diversity of school
subjects and types of video productions so as to see how flexible is the spectrum of
video-making as a teaching-for-creativity scenario. In other words, I chose variety over
specificity to see how diverse are the fields of study employing this type of DV
production project and which are their different modalities of implementation.
The student-‐produced video is the main goal or a capstone project of
the implemented program.
The program was implemented within formal educaYon, preferably High
Schoool courses, and it was meant to reinforce other subjects' learning, not
just filmmaking itself.
Whether the program was a PBL one that required interacYon amidst the group and/or an audience reach-‐out, or the task was done collaboraYvely.
The video-‐making process was somehow scaffolded and/or the final product was achieved by a technique different from the rest, so as to review as varied video-‐
making techniques as possible.
Improvement of students' media literacy, development of their creaYve thinking or their communicaYon skills, and group or social integraYon were aimed as central
or collateral learning achievement.
Student-made video project
Formal education /High School
Collaborative learning
Scaffolding of video-making
Creativity and ML skills
Figure 5 Selection criteria (Own elaboration).
20
4.3 List of articles from internationally ranked journals
# AUTHOR & YEAR JOURNAL COUNTRY TITLE WEB
SEARCHER KEY
WORDS BY AUTHOR
1 Smith (2016)
Q2 - Interdisciplinary
Journal of Problem-Based
Learning
Canada
(Re)Counting Meaningful Learning Experiences: Using Student-Created Reflective Videos to Make Invisible Learning Visible During PjBL Experiences
ERIC
Project-based learning, PjBL, STEM, reflection, alternative assessment
2 Cayari, (2015)
Q1 - International Journal of
Community Music USA
Participatory culture and informal music learning through video creation in the curriculum
ScienceDirect ("Recommend
ed articles" tool)
YouTube; music video; participatory culture; informal music; learning virtual ensemble; project-based learning
3
Palmgren-Neuvonen
& Korkeamäki
(2015)
Q2 - Learning, Culture and Social
Interaction Finland
Teacher as an orchestrator of collaborative planning in learner-generated video production
ScienceDirect
Scaffolding; Creative processing; Pedagogical dialogue; Meaning making; Movie making
4
Ornellas & Muñoz Carril (2014)
Q2 - Open Learning Spain
A methodological approach to support collaborative media creation in an e-learning higher education context
ERIC
e-learning 2.0; PBL; CSCL; Web 2.0; social video; collective media creation
5
Aksel & Gürman-
Kahraman (2014)
Q2 - Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences
Turkey
Video Project Assignments and Their Effectiveness on Foreign Language Learning
ScienceDirect ("Recommend
ed articles" tool)
Information and communication technologies (ICTs), video project assignment, English language learning
21
# AUTHOR & YEAR JOURNAL COUNTRY TITLE WEB
SEARCHER
KEY WORDS BY
AUTHOR
6
Hobbs, Donnelly,
Friesem, & Moen (2013)
Q2 - Educationnal Media
International USA
Learning to engage: how positive attitudes about the news, media literacy, and video production contribute to adolescent civic engagement
ERIC
Media literacy; secondary education; news literacy; civic engagement; curriculum; learning; outcomes; measures; media production; youth media
7 Masats &
Dooly (2011)
Q1 - Teaching and Teacher
Education Spain
Rethinking the use of video in teacher education: A holistic approach
ScienceDirect
Teacher education; Video technology; Media literacy; Reflective teaching; Project-based learning
4.4 List of articles from not ranked journals
# AUTHOR & YEAR
JOURNAL / BOOK /
CONFERENCE COUNTRY TITLE WEB
SEARCHER KEY WORDS BY AUTHOR
8 Vasilchenko et al. (2017)
ITiCSE '17 (Conference proceedings)
UK
Media Literacy as a By-Product of Collaborative Video Production by CS Students
ScienceDirect ("Recommended
articles" tool)
Media literacy; mobile video; co-production; user-generated content
9
Dune, Bidewell,
Firdaus, & Kirwan (2016)
Journal of University
Teaching & Learning Practice" (JUTLP)
Australia
Communication Idol: Using popular culture to catalyze active learning by engaging students in the development of entertaining teaching and learning resources
ERIC
Interprofessional education, popular culture, consumerism, transformatory pedagogy, student engagement, student-led learning, tertiary education, student creativity, video production, health science
22
# AUTHOR & YEAR
JOURNAL / BOOK /
CONFERENCE COUNTRY TITLE WEB
SEARCHER KEY WORDS BY AUTHOR
10 Wen & Khera (2016)
Chemical Engineering Education
USA
Identify-solve-broadcast your own transport phenomenon: Student-Created YouTube to Foster Active Learning in Mass and Heat Transfer
ERIC (Not specified)
11 Clayton & Murphy (2016)
Journal of Media Literacy
Education (JMLE)
USA
Smartphone Apps in Education: Students Create Videos to Teach Smartphone Use as Tool for Learning
ERIC
Digital literacy, mobile apps, 1:1, collaboration, smartphones in education, project-based learning, technology, hands-on learning, cross-curricular lesson, lesson design
12 Casinghino (2015)
Journal of Media Literacy
Education (JMLE)
USA
The Role of Collaboration and Feedback in Advancing Student Learning in Media Literacy and Video Production
ERIC
Media literacy, video production, revision, collaboration, feedback, learning
13
Ezquerra, Manso,
Burgos, & Hallabrin
(2014)
International Journal of
Education and Development
using Information and Communication
Technology (IJEDICT)
Spain
Creation of audiovisual presentations as a tool to develop key competences in secondary-school students. A case study in science class.
ERIC
Key competences, project-based learning, didactic video, non-obligatory secondary- schooling, kinematics.
14 García & Solano (2014)
Pedagogía audiovisual:
monográfico de experiencias
docentes multimedia
(Book)
Spain
El Quijote Sincopado: Pedagogía audiovisual y clásicos universales, de la teoría a la práctica
(Colleague’s recommen-
dation) (Not specified)
23
# AUTHOR & YEAR
JOURNAL / BOOK /
CONFERENCE COUNTRY TITLE WEB
SEARCHER KEY WORDS BY AUTHOR
15 Martín et al. (2014)
Pedagogía audiovisual:
monográfico de experiencias
docentes multimedia
(Book)
Spain
¡Estudiantes creativos! Creación de vídeos educativos en redes sociales educativas
(Colleague’s recommen-
dation) (Not specified)
16 Friesem (2014)
Journal of Media Literacy
Education (JMLE)
USA
A Story of Conflict and Collaboration: Media Literacy, Video Production and Disadvantaged Youth
ERIC
Media literacy, video production, collaboration, disadvantaged youth, portraiture
5 Findings and discussion
In this section, I present and discuss the findings of the literary review, analyzing
several common or contrasting features of the articles, first, to observe how spread this
type of studies are, discussing features such as their keywords, their geographical origin,
the publication year and the ranking of the publications. Secondly, I analyze the articles’
contents, evaluating them in two tiers: the research features and the pedagogical
features.
5.1 Analysis of articles’ keywords frequency
Alas, retracing a web search can be tricky since any SERP (Search Engines Results
Page) evolves constantly due to ever changing relevance and popularity of web pages.
Those qualities make pages crawl up or down a SERP correspondent to a certain
keyword query, but they vary due to many factors such as regional web browsing
demand, or even location and language settings of the IP address that is being used
(https://moz.com, 2017). As it is my case, on changing from the University’s computers
to my own PC, I have not been able to retrieve and report exactly the SERPs from my
first queries. Thus, after the whole selection process, using an online tool
24
(https://www.online-‐utility.org), I have done a word frequency rating of the 131 keywords
provided by the authors of the selected articles to verify that the keywords of my web
queries actually lead to the type of research papers that I am analyzing in this review.
Top phrases containing 2 words
(without punctuation marks)
Occurrences
media literacy 4
video production 2
Top phrase containing 3 words
(without punctuation marks)
Occurrences
project based learning 4
As it can be seen on the above tables, the three phrases included in my web
queries match many of the articles’ keywords proposed by their authors. Nevertheless,
when looking at the top 30 single words table, words like “learning”, “video” or
“production”, have more occurrences than the phrases, since they appeared in
combinations such as “e-learning”, “video-making” or “co-production”.
Order Unfiltered word count
Occurrences Order Unfiltered word count
Occurrences
1 learning 9 16 secondary 2
2 video 8 17 engagement 2
3 media 7 18 e 1
4 literacy 5 19 information 1
5 project 5 20 technologies 1
6 education 4 21 stem 1
7 production 4 22 co 1
8 based 4 23 creativity 1
9 student 3 24 participatory 1
10 0 2 25 technology 1
11 2 2 26 teaching 1
12 culture 2 27 dialogue 1
13 making 2 28 processing 1
14 music 2 29 collective 1
15 youth 2 30 movie 1
25
It is also relevant to observe different semantic groups. One group seems related
with the Web 2.0 – e.g. “2.0”, “participatory”, “collective” –, another one is related to ICT
and media – e.g. “information”, “technology(ies)”, “processing” –, some other group
seems related to arts and media – e.g. “movie”, “music”, “culture”–, and finally, there is a
group related to students’ motivation and/or student-centered curricula – e.g. “teaching”,
“engagement”, “secondary, “youth”, “dialogue”, “student”.
Later on, by means of an
online word cloud generator, and
using the values from the
previous table, I created this
image where the bigger words
are the ones with more
occurrences, in order to get a
visual impression of the words
frequency. I find it remarkable
how difficult is to spot the word
“creativity” in it, which appeared
only once in the articles’
keywords (see Figure 6).
5.2 Analysis of articles’ geographical origin
Once the texts were selected, on skimming them I have noticed that there is a
considerable amount of papers published by Spanish universities and researchers, even
though the web search was done in English. Being so, I have got 5 out of 16 papers
from 4 different Spanish universities: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Universidad
Rey Juan Carlos, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, and Univesitat de Barcelona. Even if
the web search might have been influenced by the search settings of my browser, which
has a Spanish IP location, the fact that in Spain this type of educational innovation is
Figure 6. Keywords cloud (Own elaboration)
26
being implemented and Spanish researchers are already studying the topic suggests
that Spain’s educational system is considerably receptive to this kind of pedagogical
innovation. Furthermore, most of the programs I found addressed to K-12 students are
from these Spanish sources.
Even though, there are other 6 articles from American universities, and one from
each of the following countries: Australia, Canada, Finland, United Kingdom, and
Turkey. All of this aside, it is noticeable when scrolling down any SERP of a web query
on media education how many American researchers are undertaking research quests
on this matter, and it is not a surprise as it can be assumed that for American institutions
and organizations innovation in media literacy and promotion of professionals in this field
is highly important as information and communication industries – which include private
industries such as publishing industries (except internet, but including software), motion
picture and sound recording industries, broadcasting and telecommunications, and data
processing, internet publishing, and other information services – have been conforming
close to 6% of the US gross domestic product since 2009 to the date (U.S. Bureau of
Economic Analysis, Aug.19th, 2017). Therefore, it could deliver considerable economical
empowerment for other countries to invest in media literacy so as to form national
professionals who innovate and locally provide services to that sector.
5.3 Analysis of publication year and journal ranking
All publications are dated within the last 6 years, 14 of which are from 2014 onwards.
As it is evident, research in this matter seems to have boomed quite recently and so it
does its appearance on internationally ranked journals. For the purpose of checking on
the publications’ ranking, I used the Scimago Journal Ranking (SJR), and only 7 journals
appeared on this ranking. In the following chart I relate the publication year, the number
of papers, and type of publication.
27
Figure 7 Publications’ type and ranking. (Own elaboration, based on the Scimago Journal Ranking and
the peer-checked notification in ERIC)
The Q1 ranked journals from where I have chosen articles treat educational research
and music respectively (Teaching and Teacher Education and International Journal of
Community Music), whereas the Q2 ranked journals involve ICT mediation in education
or PBL education, and Social Sciences (Educational Media International, Open
Learning, Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, Learning Culture and
Social Interaction, and Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences). None of these
sources were repeated though. Differently, 3 articles from the not ranked sources came
from the very same journal, Journal of Media Literacy Education (JMLE), which of
course appeared in my SERPs since part of its title are two words form my keyword
query (“media literacy”). It is worth to be mentioned that, from now on, it would be
recommendable to keep eyes on this journal not only because of its affinity with the
research proposal laid out at the end of the present review, but also because PBL video-
making programs and pedagogical innovations regarding media literacy, in general,
seem to be increasing in number and relevance over the last years; thus, this kind of
publication might ascend in the international rankings anytime soon.
Although, the fact that most of the search results including the words “media literacy”
are not internationally ranked journals could mean two things: first, that the concept of
0 1 2 3 4
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Book
Peer reviewed
SJR Q2
SJR Q1
28
media literacy has been coined quite recently, and therefore, it has been fostered by
educational research programs since very little time – just six years ago, the UNESCO
proposed an inclusive Media and Information Literacy Curriculum (Wilson et al., 2011) –;
and second, as a result of that novelty, such programs are not yet achieving top
scientific research standards, for the concept itself has not been sufficiently spread and
adopted yet. Teachers and researchers still have to deepen into its definition and
establish how it is best to teach and acquire the optimal level of media literacy and what
competences should a digital citizen have (Ceretti, 2015) Henceforth, when analyzing
the research methodology, I will split my analysis commenting first the articles appearing
in ranked journals, and then, those published in not ranked ones, so as to see if there is
any consistent difference in their research standards or not.
5.4 Research features summary
Now, let us zoom into the picture and see in detail the research methodologies, the
video-making projects, the questions and outcomes, as well as the pedagogies used in
the selected cases. To begin this analysis I present a summary table breaking down the
specific research features of each of the articles, following the same article numbering
from the prior table (see tables on pages 29-33). Then, I discuss the different features in
the following subsections right after the summary tables.
29
30
31
32
33
34
5.4.1 Ranked articles’ approaches, instruments, data types and their
analysis
According to the previous table, there are some similarities among these papers.
First, most of them (four out of seven) used a qualitative approach with a mixed
methodology for data analysis. There is only one case (Smith, 2016) that performed a
qualitative thematic analysis, proper of ethnographic studies, and one more paper that
analyzed the class observations data by coding episodes into a category system, yet still
approaching qualitatively. Differently, only one study (Aksel & Gürman-Kahraman, 2014)
approached quantitatively to the data analysis. Even though, none of the studies here
was done over large randomly selected samples of population (the largest sample
comprehend 100 participants); rather, the numerical data functioned as crosschecking
stats to support the qualitative interpretation of the data. Overall, we can say that there is
a qualitative tendency strongly sizing up the methodology approach of these papers.
Secondly, in all of the studies employing a mixed method or quantitative data
analysis, questionnaires and surveys, many of which were applied through online
platforms, were the instruments used to collect numerical data about the students’ self-
assessment as well as about their level of satisfaction, in terms of motivation, and their
evaluation of the educational value for their respective program, whereas interviews and
videos (documental recording of the sessions along with the students’ video production)
were used to gather qualitative data about students’ dialogic learning processes or their
own self-reflective discourse about their performance and development throughout the
program. As for the studies doing interviews, these were applied only to a focus group of
students, and textual analysis of the verbatim transcripts of those interviews came in
place. In short, the questionnaires and surveys provided information about the success
and/or impact of the program on students’ cognition, while interviews and videos
provided the information about participants’ metacognition of their learning and creative
process.
5.4.2 Not ranked articles’ research features compared
Now, if we take a look at the not ranked publications, we can still see a strong
35
qualitative tendency, even if four them took a mixed approach to the data analysis. For
those studies, surveys and post factum questionnaires were still an instrument to collect
quantitative data of the students’ perception about the program. Nevertheless, in this
group of articles, we find different data being analyzed quantitatively, such as before and
after quizzes about the curriculum and questionnaires about students’ media literacy,
their performance on final tests compared with a control group, or system logs from a
platform that was used to share and create the videos collectively.
This sort of data provided information not only about students’ rating of the
experience, but also about how they like the video contents produced during the
program, their knowledge on the subject, and their self-assessment of media literacy and
the acquired video production technical skills. Therefore, we can say that these studies
went deeper in measuring the impact of the video-making process on students’
knowledge acquisition and skill development.
“Researchers generally use case studies, teacher action research, participant
observation, and interviewing – not survey research – to understand how and what
students learned in their use of video” (Hobbs, Donnelly, Friesem, & Moen, 2013, p.
234). Under this statement, these authors supported their data collection prerogative,
although it seems to me that in many of the articles (6 out of 16) surveying was a regular
practice to gather information on students’ self-assessment of what they learnt and their
perception of the program’s effectiveness. However, it is true that those techniques were
used in most of the articles from not ranked publications or with a broad qualitative
approach to have a deeper understanding of students’ reflections of their experience.
Even though, there is a non-structured type of data ruling most of the cases: the
student-produced videos. The analysis of videos was approached in many different
ways, from thematic categorization, counting of the usage of clips inserted in the final
edits, or students’ rating of the videos. It is evident that this material provides plenty of
information, both qualitative and quantitative, and thus it could become quite useful to
provide adequate data for mixed approach research.
36
5.4.3 Displayed focus of study
From this summary I want to emphasize on the type of objectives and the variables
measured observed on the column Focus of study, which draw a very defined research
line. The big majority of the cases, both from ranked and not ranked publications, were
implemented to determine the effectiveness of an expressly designed program and the
way they evaluated that was by post-intervention surveying, asking the students not only
about their perception of the teaching adequacy or the motivational appeal of the video-
making process, but also about their own learning achievements. So the students’
positive perception of the program involved some sort of self-assessment of their own
performance and the skills that they were supposed to develop, but little “objective data”
or specific assessment method supported the findings of learning improvement.
Of course, some people might argue that questionnaires like these only provide
subjective information; and this is why researchers who were seeking to elaborate upon
subjective experience attributions preferred in-depth interviews of a focus group and
carried on a qualitative analysis of that. Differently, researchers who were trying to
provide a little bit more validity to their findings, the ones that were focusing more on
learning improvement or collaborative learning processes, also measured other
variables such as students scores on tests, control questionnaires, and even analyzed
system logs and social media interactions to describe the impact of their program on
students’ knowledge. Apparently, adding such type structured data to mainly qualitative
studies do not seem that popular even when using a mixed approach, and in contrast
with Hobbs et al. (2013) position, studies seem to adopt more and more post-
intervention questionnaires to measure the programs’ effectiveness and students
perception on the learning experience and achievements, instead of applying control
tests, taking into account the marks and students’ performance, or getting into
measuring and categorizing non-structured data such as the video features or student
interactions.
5.4.4 Common findings
Lastly, in regard to the findings, it amazes me how rich is the range of use of video-
37
making learning experience. It can go from fostering confidence and autonomy in a
foreign language, to open up one’s musical performance to contemporary vernacular
ways. Still, there are some key results, characteristic of most video-making programs.
According to these findings, video-making programs are:
• Intrinsically motivating – Students seem more engaged and usually
had a positive perception of this type of learning. Self-motivation, a
sense realization and retaking control of one’s life, were some of the
positive self-encouraging effects reported by students.
• Technologically challenging – At first, technological requirements and
technical skills might seem intimidating for both, teachers and
students. Additionally, technical problems with software or platforms
were found discouraging.
• Highly demanding of teacher orchestration and continuous follow-up
feedback – Since this type of project requires a complex
orchestration of curricula demands, timing, technical requirements,
and creative processing scaffolding needs, teacher must plan out
with thorough consciousness the teaching-for-creativity process.
• Social and communication catalyzers – Confidence to speak up and
engage civically, autonomy in a foreign language, writing proficiency
and text comprehension, awareness of one’s communication
strategies, creation of learning communities, and students’ openness
to collaborative learning or participatory environments were some
popular findings.
• Integrated promoters of media literacy and other basic competences
– As video-making involves several tasks, social, digital, information,
communication, and artistic skills are just few of the basic
competences integrated in such projects.
• Critical and creative thinking kindlers – By fostering students’ agency
of their own learning, they became more effective and innovative to
solve problems as well as to enunciate and apply practically
threshold concepts from curriculum.
• Means for reflection and metacognition – Digital video proved to be
an optimal mean to portray self-reflective processes and the students’
38
metacognitive narrative about their learning experiences.
In light of the above, we can affirm that project based learning programs
implementing video-making assignments are quite spread as teacher action and
participant observation research for a rich variety of learning objectives. However, these
programs are still limited to small not randomly selected samples as it is neither a
common nor a standardized practice in schools yet. Being so, there is still a gap on
integrating structured data, beyond surveying students’ satisfaction, to back up the
external validity of qualitative analyses already existent.
5.5 Pedagogical features summary
To continue this review, I display a table presenting the articles in chronological
order, and rating them according to the programs’ pedagogical features, which I will
discus in the following subsections so as to treat every feature separately. Even though
all of the programs implemented a video-making assignment, there are differences
between them that seem to have had a direct effect on their findings. On this table I rate
with 2 marks the features that were fully developed or specially addressed, with 1 mark
for the partially or vaguely developed ones, and with 0 for the not present or not
addressed ones. The rated features are video-making and creative process scaffolding,
as well as the ICT mediation, so the full score would be 6 points, which would mean that
the pedagogy implemented was very close to the standards of current-day media
education pictured back in the theoretical framework.
AUTHOR & YEAR STUDY FIELD SCHOOL LEVEL
VID
EO-M
AK
ING
SCA
FFO
LDIN
G
CR
EATI
VE
PRO
CES
S SC
AFF
OLD
ING
ICT
MED
IATI
ON
TOTA
L
Masats & Dooly (2011) Education
(Teachers' Training) University 2 2 2 6
Hobbs, Donnelly, Friesem, & Moen (2013)
Media Production High
school 2 0 0 3
39
AUTHOR & YEAR STUDY FIELD SCHOOL
LEVEL
VID
EO-M
AK
ING
SCA
FFO
LDIN
G
CR
EATI
VE
PRO
CES
S SC
AFF
OLD
ING
ICT
MED
IATI
ON
TOTA
L
Aksel & Gürman-Kahraman (2014)
English as a Foreign
Language University 1 0 0 1
Ezquerra, Manso, Burgos, & Hallabrin (2014)
STEM (Physics) High
school 1 1 0 2
Friesem (2014)
Special Project /
College
familiarization
High
school 1 1 0 2
García & Solano (2014) Spanish Language
and Literature
High
school 1 0 1 2
Martín et al. (2014) STEM High
school 2 2 2 6
Ornellas & Muñoz (2014) Audiovisual
Comunication University 2 0 2 4
Palmgren-Neuvonen & Korkeamäki (2015)
Special Project/
Social Sciences
Primary
school 1 2 0 3
Casinghino (2015) Digital Video
Production
High
school 1 0 1 2
Cayari (2015)
Music Education University 1 0 1 2
Smith (2016) Special Project/
STEM K-12 0 1 0 1
Wen & Khera (2016) STEM (Chemical
Engineering) University 2 2 1 5
Clayton & Murphy (2016)
Special Project /
Mobile Apps K-12 0 0 2 2
Dune, Bidewell, Firdaus, &
Kirwan (2016) Health Programs University 0 0 2 2
Vasilchenko et al. (2017) STEM (Computer
Science) University 1 1 2 4
40
5.5.1 Study fields and school level
To begin reviewing the pedagogical features, I discuss the variety of study fields and
the school level that these programs were meant for. As two of the articles addressed
more than one single educational level, the total number of programs in this chart seems
to be 18, but actually I counted only the 16 programs, even if two of them were meant for
K-12 students, which includes primary and high school.
As it can be seen in the above chart, programs addressed to university level were
addressed to a wider range of study fields such as Teacher Training, Music Education,
Chemical Engineering, Computer Science, and Health Studies; yet, the programs
addressed to K-12 or high school showed a smaller variety of study fields. Most of them
used video production as a mean to learn a STEM topic (science, technology,
engineering and mathematics. In fact, the higher the educational level goes, the more
varied the subjects are. Although, the majority of the programs were addressed to high
school level, and three of them were implemented in STEM subjects. Apart from two
special school projects or extracurricular courses, only in one case (García & Solano,
1
1
1
1
2
1 2
3
1
1
1
1
2
Primary and High School Teachers' Training
Music EducaYon Training
Health Programs
Audiovisual CommunicaYon, New Media and Video ProducYon (elecYve subject/ major) STEM (subject / major)
College familiarizaYon for high schoolers at risk
Spanish language and literature
English as a Foreign Language
Special media and ICT school project
Primary school
High school
University
41
2014) one different subject (Spanish language and literature) implemented a video-
making program in high school. As for primary school, it seems that these programs
usually occur within the settings of a special school project, as none of the cases
addressed to primary school was carried out as part of a regular course. This might
indicate that at basic education, teachers of other subjects that are not STEM or classes
specifically on media and audiovisual communication, do not feel compelled yet to take
up video production as a teaching and learning tool, or that teacher of basic education
are not as often involved in teacher action research, whereas in high school or
university, many of the researchers were as well teachers implementing the program.
The reasons for that phenomenon should be a matter to be discussed in further
research with bigger reach out than this brief literary review; yet, this can lead us to infer
that video production projects might be avoided as they involve a technical requirements
that are unfamiliar and intimidating to both teachers and students (Cayari, 2015); a
challenge that might seem even bigger when working with young learners.
5.5.2 Pedagogy of video-making learning experiences
5.5.2.1 Dialogical and collective learning approach
There is one common characteristic to all of the cases: the collaborative
approach. Even in the programs where video-making assignments were done
individually, sharing the videos with the classmates and provide peer feedback or
contribute with an after-visioning class discussion was part of the assignment; whether
face-to-face or mediated by Web 2.0 platforms. Actually, in all the programs employing
ICT mediation, such reflective collaborative learning was one of the main features
promoted by the on-line platforms.
As for the two programs addressed to primary or K-12 students, as it can bee seen in
the above table, the fact that 2 out of 3 cases did no have any ICT mediation stands out.
Actually, in those cases (Palmgren-Neuvonen & Korkeamäki, 2015; Smith, 2016),
students were guided to interact with their peers during class time in order to develop
42
their project collectively by means of dialogical methodology. Per example, in Smith
(2016) case, the program’s main project was to collectively develop a peer-leveled pop-
up non-fiction book, and the student-produced videos were meant to bring out students’
reflection of how they felt and behaved when developing such project within teamwork
settings. In other words, video production was a mean to seal up metacognition about
collaborative learning, and thus, to furnish students with social strategies and awareness
about interactive processes towards a shared in open-ended challenge.
In the same line, in Palmgren-Neuvonen & Korkeamäki (2015) case, even if the
focus was on teachers rather than on students, they were interested in characterizing
the types of teacher-student dialogue that fosters distributed creativity, coinciding with
Sawyer’s proposal (Sawyer & DeZutter, 2009). In this way, dialogical learning (creative
learning) and teacher’s orchestration (teaching-for-creativity planning and creative
teaching scaffolding) were the main tools in guiding the students along collective open-
ended projects.
In contrast, yet still within a collaborative learning approach, in Hobbs et al. (2013)
case, where neither there was ICT mediation, students were on a course specifically on
media and video production; so, instead of having only one video production, there were
many different media and video in-class activities that were designed and developed
collectively in attempt to learn about the different stages and sub-products of media and
filmmaking, such as media analysis and report, information gathering, scriptwriting,
storyboarding, shooting, editing, and so on. Nonetheless, all activities were developed,
presented, and discussed in collaborative settings, providing peer feedback and
constructing knowledge though group talk at all times. Therefore, these cases might
seem considerably different from each other, but the dialogical element and the
collaboration to carry through the video production were still the essence of the
programs.
5.5.2.2 ICT Mediation
As for the ten cases implementing ICT mediation, there are three relevant common
characteristics that most of them share: 1) reflective learning assignments; 2) DVS AND
43
social media commenting features supporting online platform; 3) cloud storage and/or
Web 2.0 environment to collectively develop digital documents.
For instance, there are two studies meant to describe the impact of a platform
expressly designed to implement video-making as a collaborative learning tool.
Additionally, the social media features of their platforms are crucial for their
methodology. One platform is named ClipIt (Martín et al., 2014), and the other one
Bootlegger (Vasilchenko et al., 2017). The first one is the platform of a European project
called Juxtalearn (Llinás et al., 2014) which actually implements an online step-by-step
scaffolding for creative activities, like video-making, to help students understand topics
they find difficult to grasp. After visioning the student-generated production, a reflective
discussion is done through the social media tools to finalize the learning process. By
doing so, the learning by doing principle of PBL pedagogy is enhanced by the learning
by teaching principle, where students consolidate knowledge by explaining the studied
concept to their peers.
The second platform is a mobile app that supports cloud storage of video clips and
has basic video editing tools, accompanied by different shooting templates to help
students to improve the quality of their shots, all of which intends provide all users
access to everyone’s clips so that they can use them freely in their final edits. In this
case, what has been scaffolded is the video-making process itself; nevertheless, the
learning still happens not only by making a video, but also and most importantly, by
sharing the final works and discussing it through the social media mechanisms of these
ICT tools.
Now, it is not surprising to see that the rest of the programs implementing any sort of
ICT mediation (e.g. Moodle, Sakai, Blackboard, etc.) referred YouTube as the main DVS
complement. These aforementioned educational platforms have begun to expose flaws
with their all-in-one model, since they lack of social direct communication when using
rich-media tools (Dagger, O’Connor, Lawless, Walsh, & Wade, 2007). In contrast,
YouTube allows video-related discussion right beneath the video contents, and thus,
spontaneous or user-encouraged (by both, teacher or students) reflective learning
happens in a more visual way.
44
To close this subsection, let us summarize the different uses of the ICT tools and
software employed in all programs:
• YouTube was used as a video storage and play platform, as a research
source, but most importantly, as a socializing and video sharing medium,
complementing or even substituting educational platforms like Moodle,
Sakai.
• Clipit and Bootledger, seemed the two platforms providing the most
complete set of tools, supporting social media, video cloud storage and
video editing features.
• Non-linear editing programs were used in all interventions, being the most
common iMovie, Windows Movie Maker, and Adobe Premiere, for the
final edit, and Garage Band or Audacity for editing the sound track.
• Dropbox, Google Drive and Moodle were the most common online
storage clouds used to share digital resources amidst the group.
• Google Docs was the most used programs to collectively devise the
written part of the video projects (script writing, planning, etc.).
• Google Forms, Monkey Survey, and Moodle were used to provide peer
assessment, as well as to perform pre/prost intervention surveying.
5.5.2.3 Creative process and Video-making scaffolding
When speaking of creative teaching, we could understand scaffolding of the
teaching-for-creativity scenarios as a main strategy of a teacher’s orchestration. In this
same track, as seen in the previous table, some programs were actually chosen for this
review because in their interventions the video-making process was scaffolded, whether
by planning different in-class activities or by following several tasks outlined by the ICT
expressly designed tools. Still, it is worthy to make special mention of those programs
that sought different learning benefits by producing specific types of videos and
scaffolding their creation. In several programs brainstorming was appointed as a starting
point for the creative process, but then, they focus on reporting the type of DV
production that was achieved, but did not kept developing the different steps that
45
students followed to produce the videos. In some cases, the video production was a
deep-end assignment, not scaffolded at all, and they even report that students might
have felt intimidated by the task, discouraging participation- e.g. Dune, Bidewell,
Firdaus, & Kirwan (2016). However, Wen & Khera (2016), Martín et al. (2014), and
Masats & Dooly, (2011) did scaffold DV production in quite interesting and detailed
ways.
Let us start with the one with simpler structure; Wen & Khera (2016). In this program
students followed a three steps process – identify, solve, and broadcast -. The program
was implemented in a Mass and Heat Transfer course, from Chemical Engineering
major at University of Michigan. Students enrolled in the course had to identify a concept
from the curriculum from layman point of view. This was the first step: identifying a
threshold concept, a first step also shared by Martín et al. (2014). Then, the second
step, Solve, was to come up with some experiment that would demonstrate the concept
from a scientific point of view. Up to then, the process followed was very similar to the
inquiry or challenge-based pedagogy; yet, the media part of the project was to broadcast
the experiment, which required for students to re-enunciate the whole problem in
audiovisual meaningful clips, again in laymen terms, so that anyone watching the clip
could understand that scientific concept. This re-encoding action is one of the top
pedagogic features of video-making assignments. In this case, the authors did well on
scaffolding the laying out of the problem previously, so that students would be able to
come up with effective educational video production once the problem and its solution
were clear for them. Differently from those cases treating media production as a deep-
end task, in this case the students’ perception and success in completing the task was
remarkably high.
Still in the same direction, but breaking down the process a little bit more and placing
more attention to the orchestration by means of a social media platform, (Martín et al.,
2014)proposed an 8 steps program. In this case, the teacher is the one who starts the
process by assessing the group and identifying the threshold concepts to be learnt by
means of this video-making task. The teacher is intended to intervene at all times, be it
by the resource planning and providing, as well as provoking and moderating the social
media discussions. The 8 steps are as it follows:
46
Figure 8 The Juxtalearn steps (Own elaboration based on Martín et al., 2014)
From this program it is remarkable the fact that most of the teacher orchestration and
student interaction were done through their online platform, ClipIt, not only enhancing or
augmenting the learning experience via the ICT tool, but they modified and even
revolutionized the learning experience rendering the ICT mediation the pivotal element
of this teaching-for-creativity scenario and not just some fancy complement. This is one
of the most important, if not the top, goals for ICT mediation in education (Hockly, 2009).
A case proposing a more complex structure the one studied by Masats & Dooly,
(2011), which consisted in a four-pronged video-coaching intervention. The educational
goal of this program was to coach the practicum of pre-service teachers through video.
Students were to produce an educational video, devise a lesson plan for teaching with it,
1. Identify (initial quizzes)
2. Demonstrate (reference material to create
demonstrative experiments)
3. Interpret (teacher-‐led modeling and discussions)
4. Record (shoot the experiments)
5. Compose (edit the DV clips)
6. Share (everyone shares
and views)
7. Discuss (semi-‐guided rePlective discussions)
8. Review (Pinal quizzes)
Threshold
concept
47
teach that lesson recording several aspects of their teaching practice, and finally, share
their videos and discuss them in specific forums on their school’s Sakai that worked as a
private social media environment. The interesting part here was the program’s
orchestration, which led the forum reflective discussions in four different perspectives
that are endemic of audiovisual language – re-winding, zooming in, freeze-framing, and
bird’s eye-viewing, which corresponded to four different educational uses of video –
video-viewing, video-modeling, video-coaching, and video-making respectively. In this
way, this teacher training was implementing the three traditional aspects of video-
education, yet it included video-making to expand the learning experience toward media-
education standards. They did redefined the video-coaching, speaking in Hockly's terms
(2009). In the end, Masats & Dooly (2011) proposed a 9 phases process covering all
four educational uses of video and combining already made videos, student-teacher
generated videos, and a making-of video of their own learning process as it follows:
Phase Task Outcome
1 Reflect on the usefulness of video
materials
Comprehend advantages of creating own
materials
2 Brainstorming of ideas for video Script
3 Planning the video Storyboard
4 Recording the video Raw video clips
5 Editing Final video
6 Viewing of teacher-students’ production Draft for a lesson plan using the video
7 Using the video in school placements Field notes on implementation
8 Discussion Sharing results & reflections on
implementation
9 Viewing the making-of video Reflect on what PBL entails for both
teachers and students in the learning
process
Table of four-pronged video-coaching intervention tasks and outcomes ( Own elaboration, based on
Masats & Dooly, 2011)
By means of thematic trainer-led discussion forums, this program allowed students to
co-construct knowledge and help each other to accomplish open-ended individual tasks
– in a way, a form of peer-scaffolding of the creative process. Again, learning by doing
was complemented with learning by teaching – or learning by coaching, so to speak.
Hence, in Freirian terms, we can say that this 9 phases program implies a series of
cognitive actions that cover all three necessary cognitive and metacognitive actions for
48
knowledge acquisition (encoding – decoding – re-encoding). Moreover, in Bloom’s
terms, we can see as well that it goes all up from low order thinking skills (identify,
understand, etc.) to high order thinking skills (analyze, evaluate, create, etc.). Therefore,
it seems to me that this scaffolding is the most complete from all reviewed programs, as
it truly applies all the educational uses of video and equips learners for autonomous
agency of their own media creation.
6 Conclusion
To sum up, in reviewing these articles and the related theoretical framework we have
seen that since the digital turn of society has boosted DVS as a daily basis
communicative action (Ceretti, 2015), turning our culture into a more participatory and
audiovisual one, media literacy (ML) has become crucial to experience culture (Jenkins
et al., 2013). To a longer extent, ML enables us to make full use of rights like information
access and freedom of expression (Wilson et al., 2011). Therefore, ML is also a
necessary competence to learn; mostly, if there is any ICT mediation, whether in PLEs
or in L2L2 settings.
Researchers state that even if there is a proliferation of user-generated content,
media competency is not a natural quality own by every media user (Ceretti, 2015), and
youth video production usually lacks quality, originality and creativity (Black, 2014).
Additionally, ICT mediation alone, or video-education so to speak, does not make
learning agentic; it merely facilitates unidirectional information transfer (Quinlan, 2014).
Differently, students who develop their own learning content acquire a sense of
ownership over the information, enabling them to acquire and deliver knowledge in their
own terms, enhancing class engagement and student performance (Ezquerra, Manso,
Burgos, & Hallabrin, 2014; Friesem, 2014; Lin, 2011; Palmgren-Neuvonen &
Korkeamäki, 2015; Quinlan, 2014; Wen & Khera, 2016). In this way, media-education
differs from video-education as it involves actual dialogic interaction and students’
agency in their own learning. Due to this quality, PBL and ChBL methodologies seem to
be the fittest options when it comes to teach ML.
49
Research currently exploring this type of teaching seems to be well-spread and
increasing in number in the last three years, appearing already in several internationally
ranked journals. It also seems that this type of programs are being implemented in a
wide range of study fields in higher education, but the subject variety reduces as the
program addresses younger learners. However its proliferation, media education is not
yet a common practice and its study sets up in small specific cases, so external validity
of their findings still demands to keep putting special effort towards its democratization.
Resounding with this demand, all the analyzed authors are vouching for offering
students more and sufficient learning experiences integrating new media in curricula to
equip them with current-day ML and L2L2 skills. They also coincide that video-making
learning experiences provide numerous benefits, among which catalyzing ML skills is the
one learning benefit making this type of school projects so relevant. Additionally,
development of creative and critical thinking, reading comprehension, communication
skills, and improvement of curricula comprehension are some further learning benefits of
such video-making learning experiences.
Even if all of these case studies have proved their programs to be quite effective
and many authors even point out the need to train pre-practice teachers in media-
education (Cayari, 2015; Ezquerra Martinez, Burgos Jimenez, & Manso Lorenzo, 2016;
Masats & Dooly, 2011; Palmgren-Neuvonen & Korkeamäki, 2015; Wilson et al., 2011),
very few of them provided ready-to-use video-making orchestration tools that in-practice
teachers can adopt to implement media-education in their own classrooms as soon as
possible. So, in-practice teachers seem to still be left on their own to improve their ML
skills and to update their teaching-for-creativity programs. Moreover, ICT all-in-one
educational platforms lack of DV and DVS supporting tools, so teachers and students
usually rely in a complex combination of software and online platforms to develop
projects involving video. Being so, in order to spread and standardized these teaching-
for-creativity scenarios in current-day classrooms, it seems urgent for pedagogues,
educational researchers and ICT developers to create and publish such type of
resources.
Finally, it is evident that even if this type of programs and resources are becoming
increasingly popular, their pedagogical standards in regard to creativity and the
50
redefining mediation of the ICT tools are eclectic, and thus, we could support the
opening statement that this type of programs are not yet well standardized and specific
pedagogical design and research deepening in the field are still required.
6.1 Future research towards media-education
As smart phones and tablets become increasingly accessible for youngsters and
present in nowadays classrooms (Clayton & Murphy, 2016), developing a mobile app
that scaffolds the video-making process so as to accompany teachers and students to
carry through open-ended video projects seems the right stride for educational
researchers and app developers to collaborate in providing teaching-for-creativity
resources in new media settings. That is the type of research project I intend to bring
about in continuing my path as a pre-doctoral researcher.
The main goal of my project will be to design and develop the DV and DVS techno-
pedagogical features of a mobile app to help teachers to orchestrate video-making
experiences for students within collaborative creativity learning scenarios, to finally test
the effectiveness of its implementation at obligatory high school (ESO). To that end, this
thesis should employ the structure of a design-based research.
This methodology includes different stages to obtained a completed final product.
These stages are: researching to design, creation of the tool, implementation to test the
tool, analysis of the implementation outcome and refinement of the design according to
the case study findings, and publication of the tool. In this way, the main outcome of my
research would be a published ICT tool that will be furnishing teachers and students with
a ready-to-use pedagogical tool kit to boost creative thinking and media literacy via
video-making assignments. Additionally, the findings of the case study, will contribute
with empirical evidence of how does this ICT mediation, as well as the in-class video-
making experience, impact on students’ acquisition of ESO curriculum, deepening in the
field of the media literacy and creative skills necessary to move at ease in nowadays
media-society and the learning scenarios that it implies; which, of course, need to take in
stride the educational use of DV and DVS to be considered fully consolidated.
51
7 Bibliography
Aksel, A., & Gürman-Kahraman, F. (2014). Video Project Assignments and their
Effectiveness on Foreign Language Learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 141, 319–324.
Attwell, G. (2007). Personal Learning Environments, the future of eLearning? ELearning
Pap (2). p. 1– 8
Black, J. (2014). Model New Media/Video Programs in Arts Education: Case Study
Research. International Journal of Education and Arts, 15(6), 1–26.
Casinghino, C. (2015). The Role of Collaboration and Feedback in Advancing Student
Learning in Media Literacy and Video Production Voices in the Field. Journal of
Media Literacy Education, 7(2), 69–76.
Cayari, C. (2015). Participatory culture and informal music learning through video
creation in the curriculum. International Journal of Community Music, 8(1), 41–57.
https://doi.org/10.1386/ijcm.8.1.41_1
Ceretti, F. C. (2015). Video-educar ( si ) Dal Digital Video Sharing ( DVS ) alla
meducazione. Mediascapes Journal, 126–140.
Clayton, K., & Murphy, A. (2016). Smartphone Use as Tool for Learning. Journal of
Media Literacy Education, 8(2), 99–109.
Dagger, D., O’Connor, A., Lawless, S., Walsh, E., Wade, V.P. (2007) Service-oriented e-
learning platforms: From monolithic systems to flexible services. IEEE Internet
Comput. 11, 28–35
Dune, T., Bidewell, J., Firdaus, R., & Kirwan, M. (2016). Communication Idol : Using
popular culture to catalyse active learning by engaging students in the development
of entertaining teaching and learning resources Communication Idol : Using popular
culture to catalyse active learning by. Journal of University Teaching and Learning
Practice, 13(5), Art. 15.
Ezquerra, Á., Manso, J., Burgos, E., & Hallabrin, C. (2014). Creation of audiovisual
presentations as a tool to develop key competences in secondary-school students.
A case study in science class. International Journal of Education and Development
Using Information and Communication Technology, 10(4), 155–170.
Ezquerra Martinez, A., Burgos Jimenez, E., & Manso Lorenzo, J. (2016). Estudio
comparativo sobre las estrategias desarrolladas por los futuros docentes de
52
Primaria y Secundaria en la elaboración de audiovisuales educativos. Revista
Eureka Sobre Enseñanza Y Divulgación de Las Ciencias, 13(2), 493–504.
Freire, P. (1969). Pedagogía del Oprimido. (M. E. Firori & H. Ammann, Eds.) (Digital v).
Santiago: Siglo XXI. Retrieved from http://www.libroselectronicosgratis.com/
Friesem, E. (2014). A Story of Conflict and Collaboration: Media Literacy, Video
Production and Disadvantaged Youth. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 6(1),
44–55.
García, J. D., & Solano, A. (2014). El Quijote Sincopado: Pedagogía audiovisual y
clásicos universales, de la teoría a la práctica. In E. Martín & J. Hernández (Eds.),
Pedagogía audiovisual : Monográfico de experiencias docentes multimedia (pp.
204–217). Madrid: Universidad Rey Juan Carlos.
Hobbs, R., Donnelly, K., Friesem, J., & Moen, M. (2013). Learning to engage: how
positive attitudes about the news, media literacy, and video production contribute to
adolescent civic engagement. Educational Media International, 50(4), 231–246.
Hockly, N. (2009). Substitute or redefine? Technology Matters, 21(3).
Holm, M. (2011). Project-based instruction : A Review of the Literature on Effectiveness
in Prekindergarten through 12th Grade Classrooms. InSight: Rivier Academic
Journal, 7(2), 1–13.
Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Spreadable Media: Creating value and content
in a networked culture. New York: New York University Press.
Jenkins, H., Ito, M., & Boyd, D. (2016). Participatory culture in a networked era : a
conversation on youth, learning, commerce, and politics, 214.
Lin, Y.-S. (2009). Teacher and pupil responses to a creative pedagogy: Case studies of
two primary classes in Taiwan. Doctoral Thesis, Exeter: University of Exeter
Lin, Y.-S. (2011). Fostering Creativity through Education – A Conceptual Framework of
Creative Pedagogy. Creative Education, 2(3), 149–155.
Llinás, P., Haya, P., Gutierrez, M. A., Martín, E., Castellanos, J., Hernán, I., & Urquiza, J.
(2014). Open Learning and Teaching. ClipIt: Supporting Social Reflective Learning
through Student-Made Educational Videos. (S. De Freitas, T. Ley, P. J. Muñoz-
merino, & D. Hutchison, Eds.), 9th European Conference on Technology Enhanced
Learning, EC-TEL 2014.
Martín, E., Gértrudix, M., Urquiza-Fuentes, J., Haya, P. A., Hernán-Losada, I., &
Castellanos, J. J. (2014). ¡Estudiantes creativos! Creación de vídeos educativos en
redes sociales educativas. In E. Martín & J. Hernández (Eds.), Pedagogía
53
audiovisual: monográfico de experiencias docentes multimedia. Madrid:
Universidad Rey Juan Carlos.
Martín, E., & Hernández, J. (2014). Pedagogía audiovisual: monográfico de experiencias
docentes multimedia.
Masats, D., & Dooly, M. (2011). Rethinking the use of video in teacher education: A
holistic approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 1151–1162.
Mele, L. Di, & Ceretti, F. (2016). Teach Different! In EMEM Italia 2015 (pp. 248–251).
Genova: Genova University Press & De Ferrari.
Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Mercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and
learning: The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, Culture and
Social Interaction, 1(1), 12–21.
Moz Inc. (2017) Beginners guide to SEO. Keyword research. Retrieved from
https://moz.com/beginners-guide-to-seo/keyword-research
Ornellas, A., & Muñoz Carril, P. C. (2014). A methodological approach to support
collaborative media creation in an e-learning higher education context. Open
Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 29(1), 59–71.
Palmgren-Neuvonen, L., & Korkeamäki, R. L. (2015). Teacher as an orchestrator of
collaborative planning in learner-generated video production. Learning, Culture and
Social Interaction, 7, 1–11.
Pifarré, M., Wegerif, R., Guiral, A., & Barrio, M. del. (2012). Developing Technological
and Pedagogical Affordances To Support Collaborative Inquiry Science Processes.
Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference. Cognition and Exploratory
Learning in Digital Age, (257872), 139–146.
Quinlan, K. M. (2014). Leadership of teaching for student learning in higher education:
what is needed? Higher Education Research & Development, 33(1), pp. 32-45.
Sartori, G. (1998). Homo Videns. Madrid: Santillana Ediciones.
Sawyer, R. K. (1999). The emergence of creativity. Philosophical Psychology, 12(4), p.
447–469.
Sawyer, R. K. (2004). Creative Teaching: Collaborative Discussion as Disciplined
Improvisation. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 12–20.
Sawyer, R. K., & DeZutter, S. (2009). Distributed creativity: How collective creations
emerge from collaboration. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(2),
54
81–92.
Sawyer, R. K., Moran, S., John-Steiner, V., Sternberg, R. J., Henry Feldman, D.,
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). Creativity and Development. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Sharples, M., & Anastopoulou, S. (2012). Designing orchestration for inquiry learning.
Orchestrating inquiry learning: Contemporary perspectives on supporting scientific
inquiry learning. In K. Littleton, E. Scanlon, & M. Sharples (Eds.), Orchestrating
inquiry learning (pp. 69–85). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Shor,
Smith, S. (2016). ( Re ) Counting Meaningful Learning Experiences : Using Student-
Created Reflective Videos to Make Invisible Learning Visible During PjBL
Experiences The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning ( Re )
Counting Meaningful Learning Experiences : , 10(1), 9–15.
Tarkovsky, A. (1987). Sculpting in time (Trans. Kit). Austin: University of Texas Press.
UNESCO (2005) Alexandria Proclamation. Retrieved from
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/access-to-
knowledge/information-literacy/
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. (Aug.19th, 2017). Annual value added by industry.
Retrieved from https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=51&step=1#reqid
=51&step=51&isuri=1&5114=a&5102=5
Vasilchenko, A., Green, D. P., Qarabash, H., Preston, A., Bartindale, T., & Madeline, B.
(2017). Media Literacy as a By-Product of Collaborative Video Production by CS
Students. In ITiCSE ’17, Session 2B: Off the Beaten Path (pp. 58–63). Bologna,
Italy: ACM.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wegerif, R. (2001). Applying a dialogical model of reason in the classroom. Rethinking
Collaborative Learning, 119–139.
Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (1999). From social interaction to individual
reasoning: an empirical investigation of a possible socio-cultural model of cognitive
development. Learning and Instruction, 9(6), 493–516.
Wen, F., & Khera, E. (2016). Identify-solve-broadcast your own transport phenomenon:
Student-Created Youtube to Foster Active Learning in Mass and Heat Transfer.
Chemical Engineering Education, Class and Home Problems, 50(3), 186–192.
55
Wilson, C., Grizzle, A., Tuazon, R., Akyempong, K., & Cheung, C. (2011). Media and
Information Literacy Curriculum for Curriculum Teachers. (C. Wilson & A. Grizzle,
Eds.), Communication and Information Sector. Paris: United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Yang, K. hwa. (2013). A Reflection on a Participatory Video Project: Possibilities and
Challenges for Promoting Participatory Cultures among Adult Learners. Urban
Review, 45(5), 671–683.